Carbon storage recovery in surviving lodgepole pine (<i>Pinus contorta</i> var. <i>latifolia</i>) 11 years after mountain pine beetle attack in northern British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the recovery of tree- and stand-level carbon (C) storage in a lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) forest in northern British Columbia that experienced substantial (∼83%) mortality in 2006–2007 (total loss by 2013 = 86%) during a severe mountain pine beetle (MPB; Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, 1902) infestation. Earlier work suggested that this forest recovered positive annual C storage 3 years after attack based on eddy covariance measurements. We sought to confirm these results by examining C storage in surviving pine trees using tree core analysis. Average growth release of surviving lodgepole pine trees was 392% (range of –53% to 2326%) compared with mean decadal growth prior to MPB attack. Nearly 97% of trees underwent a growth release, considerably higher than the 15%–75% reported for lodgepole pine in previous studies. Mean annual stem C storage of the surviving trees in this study was highly correlated (r = 0.88) with 10 years of annual net ecosystem productivity estimates made using the eddy covariance technique, indicating that surviving lodgepole pine remain an important part of C recovery after MPB attack. Mean annual stem C storage was also highly correlated (r = 0.92) with the cumulative percentage of downed stems per hectare at the site, suggesting that increased availability of resources is likely assisting the growth release.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".